Anybody using a backhoe attachment on their CUT?

[DUMBnEASY]

I'm afraid I cannot answer your question. However, I DO have a couple of questions for you. I don't know much about heavy equipment, but my cousin gave me a W14B with backhoe that came from the military. I suspect the SeaBees since it has a nameplate that says Dept of the Navy. The backhoe has its own model number which is a 26D - 12 ft. My questions are... 1) I know Case makes several 580's. So I'm wondering if the 580CF you have was actually a loader with the backhoe once attached. Or whether the backhoe may have a separate model number such as MODEL 26D that was attached to it?
Don'cha just hate us newbies?

 

[Jstpssng]

A neighbor had a BH attachment on his Kubota and ended up cracking the aluminum trans case. I think any 'subframe' should be extra beefy to avoid stress on the tractor frame/case. I know it's not what you asked, but how about a used skid steer with a BH attachment? I have and old Arps hoe I adapted to my 1983 Mustang 342 and it works great. Not like a full size BH but, I always compare it to a shovel, and I like it much better! The skid steer arms with the BH outriggers direct the stress into the ground. I doubt I can hurt the skid steer with the BH. Oh, self employed machinist here as well....I like to build things in the shop so I know where you're coming from.

Your neighbor likely had a 3 pth model, which does put a lot of strain on the rear housing. A subframe is bolted to the bottom and distributes the weight to different points on the tractor.

The hoe will pick up the rear wheels so even side to side movements are possible and I have done it often. But more than one person here has said I will need to climb off the hoe and back onto the tractor to move it every three feet. Why would this need to be done?

It's a much lighter weight machine and you would be stressing it beyond the limits. I know what you are talking about with your Case and have seen it before. I've even seen guys load it onto a trailer using the bucket and hoe.

 

[Carl_NH]

I have looked at the linkage for the Power Shift and have determined that I could, without too much trouble, hook up a shifter so I could go forward or backward while sitting in the backhoe seat.

Yes this would work and I do this with my B21 to reposition the machine - it's an HST but would work with shuttle too.

Another member here put a 12V linear actuator on the treadle pedal of an HST and a switch to activate FWD/REV - pretty slick.

I would stay away from repositioning with the BH on the small machine - too much stress as Jstpssing stated.

Sounds like you have a good plan with the subframe - just make a real solid connection BH frame to Subframe - look at the 4 pin approach with a cradle on the bottom subframe the BH locks/latches into, then pin on both sides on the top you tilt into.

 

[California]

... Case 580 it is not very easy to turn the seat around. So when moving the machine short distances I usually use the hoe for this task. The hoe will pick up the rear wheels so even side to side movements are possible and I have done it often. But more than one person here has said I will need to climb off the hoe and back onto the tractor to move it every three feet. Why would this need to be done? ... Since I would be using a sub frame with the little hoe would it still be dangerous to the tractor to lift the rear and shift it sideways like I do with the Case?

I have looked at the linkage for the Power Shift and have determined that I could, without too much trouble, hook up a shifter so I could go forward or backward while sitting in the backhoe seat. Since the Power Shift doesn't require clutching it would be sorta like using the shuttle shift on the Case.

My Yanmar YM240 weighs about the same as your YM2310. I need the front bucket dug in, usually rolled all the way forward, (photo) to anchor the tractor against the backhoe's ability to pull the tractor back toward the excavation. The backhoe's feet plus locking the brakes aren't sufficient. So lifting the back of your tractor might serve for moving it sideways, but trying to move it forward against locked brakes and that front bucket is not going to advance along the line of the trench very well.

Running linkage forward to the PowerShift shift lever may add to the danger of using a backhoe. Things can go wrong unexpectedly on a tractor. For example if the linkage gets stuck in Drive, then leaping off the backhoe seat and running to get up on the (slow) moving tractor as it approaches rollover or something, maybe the front fell in a hole for example, or your subframe broke and jammed the shift linkage to a faster speed, could be dangerous. Let's see if others use a similar linkage.

I do reach forward with a shovel to nudge the throttle lever sometimes. The shovel is in a golf bag strapped to the ROPS. (old photo)

Here's a photo showing how the loader subframe is attached at the rear axle on my YM240. I think this stiffening has prevented the hoe from damaging this tractor.

And not relevant to you, but to someone else with a 3-point backhoe - they aren't designed for down-pressure! I bent a 3-point lower arm dragging the tractor sideways with the hoe. It took a BFH to straighten the arm. Not recommended!

 

[DonaldP]

A neighbor had a BH attachment on his Kubota and ended up cracking the aluminum trans case. I think any 'subframe' should be extra beefy to avoid stress on the tractor frame/case. I know it's not what you asked, but how about a used skid steer with a BH attachment? I have and old Arps hoe I adapted to my 1983 Mustang 342 and it works great. Not like a full size BH but, I always compare it to a shovel, and I like it much better! The skid steer arms with the BH outriggers direct the stress into the ground. I doubt I can hurt the skid steer with the BH. Oh, self employed machinist here as well....I like to build things in the shop so I know where you're coming from.

That is a really awesome setup!!!you have the best of both worlds there for sure!

 

[Jstpssng]

My Yanmar YM240 weighs about the same as your YM2310. I need the front bucket dug in, usually rolled all the way forward, (photo) to anchor the tractor against the backhoe's ability to pull the tractor back toward the excavation. The backhoe's feet plus locking the brakes aren't sufficient. So lifting the back of your tractor might serve for moving it sideways, but trying to move it forward against locked brakes and that front bucket is not going to advance along the line of the trench very well.

Running linkage forward to the PowerShift shift lever may add to the danger of using a backhoe. Things can go wrong unexpectedly on a tractor. For example if the linkage gets stuck in Drive, then leaping off the backhoe seat and running to get up on the (slow) moving tractor as it approaches rollover or something, maybe the front fell in a hole for example, or your subframe broke and jammed the shift linkage to a faster speed, could be dangerous. Let's see if others use a similar linkage.

I do reach forward with a shovel to nudge the throttle lever sometimes. The shovel is in a golf bag strapped to the ROPS. (old photo)

Here's a photo showing how the loader subframe is attached at the rear axle on my YM240. I think this stiffening has prevented the hoe from damaging this tractor.

And not relevant to you, but to someone else with a 3-point backhoe - they aren't designed for down-pressure! I bent a 3-point lower arm dragging the tractor sideways with the hoe. It took a BFH to straighten the arm. Not recommended!

My first backhoe was a little CadDigger 608 which not only rode on the 3pth but also wasn't tied down, so that it would ride up and down if I wasn't careful. I learned to scratch with the bucket to loosen the soil rather than try to force it straight down; and did a lot of work with that little implement. I dug stumps which my loader couldn't lift, by digging around it rather than trying to rip them out like an excavator does.

The last time that I used it I could only get down about 3 feet and couldn't go any deeper. I finally got off and tried to loosen the hard pan with my pick axe... only to find that it was ledge.

 

[Dale Mercer]

Boy oh boy, did my post generate a lot of replies! Thanks Everyone!
I now have at least one more question. And some observations too. When using the Case 580 it is not very easy to turn the seat around. So when moving the machine short distances I usually use the hoe for this task. The hoe will pick up the rear wheels so even side to side movements are possible and I have done it often. But more than one person here has said I will need to climb off the hoe and back onto the tractor to move it every three feet. Why would this need to be done?
I have looked at the linkage for the Power Shift and have determined that I could, without too much trouble, hook up a shifter so I could go forward or backward while sitting in the backhoe seat. Since the Power Shift doesn't require clutching it would be sorta like using the shuttle shift on the Case.
Since I would be using a sub frame with the little hoe would it still be dangerous to the tractor to lift the rear and shift it sideways like I do with the Case? I did crawl under the tractor to see how a sub frame would fit because there is already the FEL frame. Using cardboard and cutting it to fit around stuff I can see that I can make a sub frame that will work and bolt into the existing channel frame at the front of the tractor and clamp around the rear axle housing. There are even a set of grooves on each side of the rear axle housings that appear to be there for just this purpose.
Most of the rocks I will need to pick up weigh less than 200 pounds so as long as the thumb will allow that I would be pretty happy. For heavier rocks I would still use the bucket as I do now.
I do understand that the little hoe will not dig like the Case but I don't expect it to. If the Case wasn't so big I would just use it for everything. And I could just rent a mini excavator except the nearest rental place is about 60 miles from me and I would need it delivered. Living on an island can have its drawbacks.
I'm gonna keep reading this thread before I make a purchase. Like I said I have looked for someone who would want to trade my big Case for a smaller machine. And I'll keep looking for that option too. If I could trade it for a mini excavator with a thumb I would be very happy. But that's not gonna happen.
Thanks,
Eric

 

[Torvy]

If I could find one of these that cheap then I will keep the Case, just in case. Pun intended.

haha...got me to thinking. I drove near Justin, TX this morning. I guess if they had a dealer, it would be Justin Case.

 

[etpm]

I'm afraid I cannot answer your question. However, I DO have a couple of questions for you. I don't know much about heavy equipment, but my cousin gave me a W14B with backhoe that came from the military. I suspect the SeaBees since it has a nameplate that says Dept of the Navy. The backhoe has its own model number which is a 26D - 12 ft. My questions are... 1) I know Case makes several 580's. So I'm wondering if the 580CF you have was actually a loader with the backhoe once attached. Or whether the backhoe may have a separate model number such as MODEL 26D that was attached to it?
Don'cha just hate us newbies?

My backhoe is a 580CK. It is a tractor with a loader and a backhoe. The backhoe can be removed. I have never even attempted this because the hydraulic hoses to the hoe aren't quick disconnect and I have never needed it to come off. I don't know if the hoe has a separate part number. I do know that the ultimate digging depth depth is 16 feet. But you would need to have the hoe dragging the bottom of the ditch while the tractor was driven forward to get a flat bottom at that depth.
Eric

 

[Dale Mercer]

I can use the backhoe and pick up the back of the tractor and walk it to the left or right or forward and back but I'm not doing it for a long distance

 

[etpm]

Your neighbor likely had a 3 pth model, which does put a lot of strain on the rear housing. A subframe is bolted to the bottom and distributes the weight to different points on the tractor.

It's a much lighter weight machine and you would be stressing it beyond the limits. I know what you are talking about with your Case and have seen it before. I've even seen guys load it onto a trailer using the bucket and hoe.

Yeah, I have moved my machine with the bucket and the hoe. It's kinda weird to have the tractor suspended by both the bucket and the hoe at the same time.
I don't understand why I would be stressing my lighter machine if the hoe is affixed to a proper sub frame. Am I missing something?
Thanks,
Eric

 

[b59ram]

Greetings All,
I just can't seem to get this out of my mind. I have a Yanmar YM2310 with an FEL and a Case 580CK backhoe. I no longer need the big backhoe. It digs well but the bucket is 2 feet wide. And the machine is huge compared to my Yanmar. Now the only digging I need to do is ditches for water lines and a few power lines. I could really use a small backhoe with a thumb.
I move a lot of rocks because we have so many and every time I dig I get more. My back is slowly fusing itself, some sort of genetic thing, and this makes it particularly hard on my back when moving heavy things. Being able to pick and place rocks with a thumb would save me a lot of trouble and pain.
I would love to have a small excavator but I can't justify the expense. I have been looking to trade my big hoe for a smaller one but haven't had any luck with that. So I'm wondering if a subframe mounted backhoe on my Yanmar would be useful. Maybe something like this: 5\' Dig Self Contained Backhoe, VL-BHM5 | Betstco Sales, Parts, and Service:
I can build the subframe myself, I have a complete machine shop and welders and the expertise. Since I'm retired the shop is free for me to play in. The hoe would be powered with a PTO pump.
Anybody with a good amount of experience that wants to chime in I would greatly appreciate anything you would have to say.
Thanks,
Eric

I've been running a Bradco 408 sub-frame mounted backhoe on my Mahinra 3510 4WD since new in 2002, with great success. Unfortunately Bradco ceased their small backhoe line years ago, so you'd have to find an old one someplace. I've got almost 1900 hours on it, and have dug many hundreds of feet of drain and utility lines, plus a 35'x42' foundation for my garage. I just recently had a 10" trench bucket built for it at a local welding/bucket manufacturing shop (Manco Thumbs in New Milford, Ct). Can't wait to try it out.

 

[etpm]

I've been running a Bradco 408 sub-frame mounted backhoe on my Mahinra 3510 4WD since new in 2002, with great success. Unfortunately Bradco ceased their small backhoe line years ago, so you'd have to find an old one someplace. I've got almost 1900 hours on it, and have dug many hundreds of feet of drain and utility lines, plus a 35'x42' foundation for my garage. I just recently had a 10" trench bucket built for it at a local welding/bucket manufacturing shop (Manco Thumbs in New Milford, Ct). Can't wait to try it out.

Your tractor weighs about 1000 lbs more than mine so I'm sure it has an easier time digging. What size bucket are you using? I will be using a 9 inch max wide bucket.
Eric

 

[b59ram]

I use the 16"bucket which came with it. Just this year I replaced all 4 digging teeth. It has plenty of digging power, and will dig a max 8' flat bottom trench.

 

[Jstpssng]

Yeah, I have moved my machine with the bucket and the hoe. It's kinda weird to have the tractor suspended by both the bucket and the hoe at the same time.
I don't understand why I would be stressing my lighter machine if the hoe is affixed to a proper sub frame. Am I missing something?
Thanks,
Eric

I would say that you are missing the strength to weight ratio. Yes, these small units can do a lot. But your TLB is designed for that purpose. It is a lot more robust.

 

[Dale Mercer]

Grapple?

Sorry about the SP in spelling class I spent to much time watching the gal with the BB

 

[etpm]

I would say that you are missing the strength to weight ratio. Yes, these small units can do a lot. But your TLB is designed for that purpose. It is a lot more robust.

The purpose of the subframe (dammit! my computer doesn't recognize subframe but I'm gonna continue to use it anyway), is to take away stress from whatever it is supporting. The subframe must be able to carry the weight of the tractor. So the subframe, being connected at the front and rear of the tractor, should support the tractor's weight the same way that the wheels do. The problem I see is that if the rear of the tractor is lifted then the tractor's weight will be suspended from the rear axle and as the rear is raised more weight will be transferred to the front axle. Like going downhill. More weight on the front of the tractor.
So, if the subframe is strong enough to keep it from flexing enough to stress the tractor beyond acceptable limits it should be OK. Fortunately the tractor is not that heavy and the stiffness of a beam increases to the cube of the height. So I don't really need a really tall beam to support the tractor.
Though I'm not a mechanical engineer I am a machinist who has had to build stuff that involved beams. From small and very delicate inspection tools to shop cranes. And I used Machinery's Handbook to help me with the design process. All the formulas and drawings that tell you how to apply the formulas are in the book. So designing a proper subframe won't be that hard. I feel sorry for anybody who was using the formulas back when my 1918 edition of Machinery's Handbook was published. I did some calculations years ago longhand, without using a calculator, but instead using charts to cheat a little bit, and it took a looong time. And then checking my work took that much longer. I REALLY respect the folks who used to figure out and do all the math without even mechanical calculators.
Eric

 

[mkendrix]

I have a 1960’s International 404 with a loader. I bought a Bush Hog BH with a NH subframe, modified the mounts to fit my tractor and built a 3 pt power pack. I dug a 32’ x 50’ foundation for my new house. Later I trenched and backfilled over 120’ of sewer and electric conduit from 36” to 54” deep in an afternoon. Mostly it runs at idle and has all the power I’ve needed. I have a 20” bucket but a 9” is the standard issue size with options to 36”?? (I bought it sitting beside the road for $2500 and about $1000 for power pack.) Don’t like not having 3pt access but wouldn’t give up BH! Just haven’t taken time to unhook it and replace 3pt arms.

 

[jjeff]

Sorry about the SP in spelling class I spent to much time watching the gal with the BB

No need to apologize, I've committed countless spelling errors. I initially thought it was a new tractor attachment Ive never heard of. Lol

 

[DonaldP]

The purpose of the subframe (dammit! my computer doesn't recognize subframe but I'm gonna continue to use it anyway), is to take away stress from whatever it is supporting. The subframe must be able to carry the weight of the tractor. So the subframe, being connected at the front and rear of the tractor, should support the tractor's weight the same way that the wheels do. The problem I see is that if the rear of the tractor is lifted then the tractor's weight will be suspended from the rear axle and as the rear is raised more weight will be transferred to the front axle. Like going downhill. More weight on the front of the tractor.
So, if the subframe is strong enough to keep it from flexing enough to stress the tractor beyond acceptable limits it should be OK. Fortunately the tractor is not that heavy and the stiffness of a beam increases to the cube of the height. So I don't really need a really tall beam to support the tractor.
Though I'm not a mechanical engineer I am a machinist who has had to build stuff that involved beams. From small and very delicate inspection tools to shop cranes. And I used Machinery's Handbook to help me with the design process. All the formulas and drawings that tell you how to apply the formulas are in the book. So designing a proper subframe won't be that hard. I feel sorry for anybody who was using the formulas back when my 1918 edition of Machinery's Handbook was published. I did some calculations years ago longhand, without using a calculator, but instead using charts to cheat a little bit, and it took a looong time. And then checking my work took that much longer. I REALLY respect the folks who used to figure out and do all the math without even mechanical calculators.
Eric

Really interesting viewpoint of this from a purely analytical standpoint.

The purpose of the subframe (dammit! my computer doesn't recognize subframe but I'm gonna continue to use it anyway), is to take away stress from whatever it is supporting. The subframe must be able to carry the weight of the tractor. So the subframe, being connected at the front and rear of the tractor, should support the tractor's weight the same way that the wheels do. The problem I see is that if the rear of the tractor is lifted then the tractor's weight will be suspended from the rear axle and as the rear is raised more weight will be transferred to the front axle. Like going downhill. More weight on the front of the tractor.
So, if the subframe is strong enough to keep it from flexing enough to stress the tractor beyond acceptable limits it should be OK. Fortunately the tractor is not that heavy and the stiffness of a beam increases to the cube of the height. So I don't really need a really tall beam to support the tractor.
Though I'm not a mechanical engineer I am a machinist who has had to build stuff that involved beams. From small and very delicate inspection tools to shop cranes. And I used Machinery's Handbook to help me with the design process. All the formulas and drawings that tell you how to apply the formulas are in the book. So designing a proper subframe won't be that hard. I feel sorry for anybody who was using the formulas back when my 1918 edition of Machinery's Handbook was published. I did some calculations years ago longhand, without using a calculator, but instead using charts to cheat a little bit, and it took a looong time. And then checking my work took that much longer. I REALLY respect the folks who used to figure out and do all the math without even mechanical calculators.
Eric

Great feedback from a purely analytical perspective. Thank you!!

From looking at my Kubota subframe it appears that wherever they could build in a solid straight frame assembly they did. But there are areas where they needed to cut away material to clear other areas that were not something that could be redesigned such as the transmission/engine/ rear-end components. So I'm cutting away material, they had to increase the overall "beam" size, or height of the subframe basis. That is, if you have a 3/4" thick beam that's 8" high and let's say it supports 3000lbs over a 8' length, then if you take a 4" x 4" square out of the beam let's say from the top (compression side), than you would need to compensate for that cutout by adding another 4" to the beam width...? So you would need to start with a 12" high beam instead of an 8" high, because you would be cutting 4" away at some distance that would actually weaken the structure of the beam by about 4"...

So I'm just saying that if there are 4 to 6 areas that need cutouts for various things, that you would need to figure all of that into the design.

THEN if you have the beam bent off the x/y axis so that it gets wider as it moves toward the front, or narrower depending on what you need to attach the front of the frame to... well then you add additional weakness due to a moment about the original axis... so it starts to get complicated quickly with every bend or cutout necessary.